Online / Offline | No Mercy / No Malice

This past weekend I turned 50 (just be happy about it). It’s a milestone and a chance to reflect, which I do… too much. The past 50 years have seen perhaps more technological innovation and disruption than the previous 500. The year my parents divorced, I spent the summer with my father in Chicago. On weekends, we commuted to his office downtown, where I could use the WATS line (ask a Boomer) to call my mother. Long-distance calls cost $4 a minute. The hour-long train ride was well worth it.

If the cycle time of innovation continues to shrink, we could see even greater changes in the next 15 years. The net net of a leap to lightspeed innovation is a mix of unprecedented prosperity and danger, as godlike technology collides with Paleolithic instincts and medieval institutions.

Dinosaurs

Sixty-six million years ago, an asteroid struck mate Everest struck Earth. The impact unleashed an apocalyptic series of events that altered the global ecosystem, wiped out the dinosaurs, and set the stage for Homo habilis (i.e., us). When a natural ecosystem changes, predators and prey adapt or die.

Thirty years ago, the Internet struck our information ecosystem. The Internet is bigger and more devastating than the Chicxulub (note: great name for a boy band) impact. Chicxulub didn’t wipe out the dinosaurs right away; it took about 30,000 years before the last Triceratops breathed its last. Newspaper revenues peaked in 2005 and have been declining ever since 80%; the revenues of traditional television are halved since streaming began. It’s not fair to call legacy media “dinosaurs” to dinosaurs. The new apex predators (tech platforms) have evolved from amoebas to Tyrannosaurus rexes since the debut season of Law and orderThe way we take in and process the information that shapes our views and actions is changing, as we are.

Acorn

Offline, I’m a better person: friendlier, more likely to find common ground. Online, I’m defensive and angry, constantly battling bots, anonymous trolls, and bad-faith slanderers. And most people online are lesser versions of themselves.

Why the Jekyll and Hyde Act? The frictionless experiences created by the digital revolution make it easy to post harmful content without thinking about it first. Social media companies have experimented with moderation tools that warn users before they post anything harmful, but the idea hasn’t caught on. We hate the crudeness of online culture, but we hate friction. And just as there are cues to be polite offline (e.g. traffic signs, handicapped parking), today’s corporate titans have discovered that while sex sells, rage sells. Their algorithms elevate content that is inflammatory and novel (i.e., bullshit). If only there was a way to absolve them of the externalities of the emissions their users are spewing into society, which (in my opinion) are more damaging than carbon? But wait, there’s… Section 230.

Take off that mask

Halloween is my favorite holiday. Something about wearing a wig—and giving women the green light to dress up as sluts—works for me. I often get drunk and act outrageously beyond what society would accept, like on a Wednesday afternoon in February. The guys who dumped British tea into Boston Harbor dressed as Native Americans to avoid accountability. The men behind the Declaration of Independence signed their names because they had the courage to stand up for their beliefs.

The value of anonymity has been exaggerated in favor of the established tech companies, who do not want to be held accountable for the damage their companies cause. We are more likely to post inflammatory/defamatory content when we know there will be no consequences. As a famous 1993 cartoon in the New Yorker said, “On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” Today the caption would read, “On the internet, no one knows you’re an asshole.”

Telegram

Imagine I own a hotel. The Scott has a California King in every room, James Perse pajamas, a decent pool, a dog park, and a taco truck that never closes. It is also a hub for terrorism, child exploitation, and illegal gun sales. In the analog, ultra-offline world, The Scott would be shut down and Scott Galloway jailed. But our idolatry of dollars and innovators has morphed into an Iron Dome that intercepts all incoming accountability hurled at “emerging platforms.” If it’s digital, it’s speech, and it’s immune. The least awesome generation (techbros) have convinced the media and lawmakers that their crimes are… speech. And not subject to the same standards as similar activities in the offline world.

Telegram is a communication platform with public channels, private chats that can be encrypted, and messages that delete themselves. A billion people use it. The Russian army usage on the battlefield in Ukraine. Activists against governments in authoritarian countries usage it. At one point, Telegram was the app of choice for IS fighters. Recently it is the go to platform for domestic terrorists. It is also a must-have for criminal networksTelegram, which bills itself as a free speech platform that does not moderate content, was instrumental for the right-wing groups that organised race riots in the UK this summer.

Implications?

Last month, the French authorities arrested Telegram CEO Pavel Durov. The charges include allegations that the platform is being used to distribute child pornography and facilitate drug trafficking, and that the platform refused to share information with investigators as required by law. These are serious allegations and if proven, Telegram and its CEO will be punished. That shouldn’t be controversial. But as soon as the news of Durov’s arrest broke, he was crowned a martyr to free speech by the usual suspects of Silicon Valley. This isn’t about speech, it’s about our decision to deify billionaires, and the platforms that made them billionaires.

Freedom of expression

Often the Internet’s most intractable problems end up in a dead end street when it comes to freedom of speech. Last week, 42 State attorneys general called on Congress to mandate warning labels for social media, citing a surgeon general report which describes the link between social media and anxiety and depression in teens. Reporters, activists and parents, including mehave been highlighting this problem for years. But it’s unlikely we’ll see a warning label, as social media companies will employ lobbyists, lawyers and publicists to ‘innovation-wash’ (i-wash) their criminality. Linking it to economic growth, free speech, youth and a general sense that restricting them would be wrong — or worse, European.

When thousands of Americans died every day during the pandemic, public health officials asked social media platforms to remove misinformation about Covid-19. This was immediately framed as a conspiracy to control people. Balancing public health and civil liberties is never easy. In some cases, public health officials went too far; in other cases, social media platforms willingly complied and likely saved lives. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled governed in favor of the government, although the decision was made on procedural grounds. But what should have been a shining moment for a free society degenerated into a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories, publicity stunts and dishonest accusations of censorship.

Earlier this year, sexually explicit AI-generated images of Taylor Swift went viral, with one image posted to X receiving 24,000 shares and 45 million views. Deep fakes make the problem of revenge porn worse — but revenge porn reached a scale long before Taylor Swift became a victim. In the US, 49 States have laws against such behavior. But at the federal level — where it matters — efforts to criminalize revenge porn, or at least give victims the ability to seek civil remedies, have consistently stuck due to First Amendment concerns. What would happen if pornographic AI-generated images of Taylor Swift were shown on baby boomer televisions, in movie theaters, or in some other lame medium?

Responsibility

Censorship is a problem in a free society, but it is not our biggest problem and has become a false distraction from the larger dangers we face. We are raising the most obese, addicted, fearful generation in the history of our country. But censorship…that is the real threat? Give me a fucking break. Censorship cries are a sign of someone who won’t shut up and is EVERYWHERE. Our society has adopted a common myth that being offended or yelling “censorship” means you are right. No, it just means you are offended and have become allergic to people who oppose your bullshit.

A much greater threat is the belief that the Internet and its fanatics offer only freedom and zero responsibility.

Perhaps that sentiment echoes John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Barlow, a techno-libertarian who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote“Governments of the industrial world, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of the spirit. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.” Barlow’s essay came in response to the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or what is known today as Section 230.

By exempting online platforms from the statements of third parties, media platforms are exempted from the scrutiny, accountability and citizenship we demand of other media companies.

But it is a false premise to suggest that freedom is antithetical to responsibility. It is not. The freedoms we enjoy are a function of the responsibility embraced by people who see themselves as part of something larger. When Durov was arrested, there was a cacophony of catastrophic comments from the tech world, which would not surrender its laminated stay-out-of-jail cards. “This is going to make the tech world shudder,” billionaire tech figures complained. Yes, winter is coming. And that’s a good thing.

Life is so rich,

PS Was this newsletter forwarded to you? You can subscribe here.

PPS Section is hosting a free, full-day, virtual conference on getting and proving AI ROI. Speakers include AI experts, thought leaders, ethicists — and me. You can register now.